Tenant Has No Role For Dictating As To Which Premises Landlord Should Get Vacated For His Need Alleged In Eviction Suit: Jharkhand High Court
The case arose from a Second Appeal challenging a decree for eviction passed in a title eviction suit, which was upheld by the Appellate Court.
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that in eviction matters based on bona fide necessity, the landlord has the sole discretion to determine which of their properties is required for their needs, and tenants cannot dictate alternative arrangements.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, while dismissing a tenant's appeal against eviction, held that the necessity must be real and not a mere pretext for eviction.
“The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role for dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction,” the Court observed.
The case arose from a Second Appeal challenging a decree for eviction passed in a title eviction suit, which was upheld by the appellate court. The tenant contended that the landlord had other accommodations available and that partial eviction could suffice to meet the landlord’s needs. The courts, however, found that the landlord’s requirement was genuine and rejected the tenant's plea.
The High Court also clarified that under Section 14 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 2000, a decree for eviction bars a second appeal unless substantial questions of law are raised. Since the lower courts had correctly evaluated the evidence and the tenant had admitted to having alternative premises, the Court found no reason to interfere with the eviction order.
"Further section 13 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000, speaks of the provision of section 14 to have over-riding effect and section 14 of the said Act speaks of special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction on the ground of bona-fide requirement and section 14(7) of the said Act speaks of to follow the practice and procedure of the courts of small causes including the recording of evidences and in light of that, sub-section 8 of section 14 of the said Act, bars the appeal," the Court said.
Condemning the tenant’s prolonged litigation despite concurrent findings in favour of the landlord, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, lifted the interim stay, and ordered the return of trial court records.
"...reasons and analysis, the Court finds that this Second Appeal needs to be dismissed, and accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly. The Trial Court Records be sent back to learned court concerned forthwith," the Court ordered.
Cause Title: Namita Bose v. Satyanarain Prasad Chourasia [Second Appeal No. 79 of 2017]
Appearance:-
Appellant: Advocates P.K. Bhattacharya, Aditya Kumar Jha
Respondent: Advocates Sudarshan Srivastava, Manoj Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Pratyush
Click here to read/download the Order
